Randomized trial of the i-gel supraglottic airway device versus tracheal intubation during out of hospital cardiac arrest (AIRWAYS-2): Patient outcomes at three and six months

Jonathan R Benger, Michelle J Lazaroo, Madeleine Clout, Sarah Voss, Sarah Black, Stephen J Brett, Kim Kirby, Jerry P Nolan, Barnaby C Reeves, Maria Robinson, Lauren J Scott, Helena Smartt, Adrian South, Jodi Taylor, Matthew Thomas, Sarah Wordsworth, Chris A Rogers

Resuscitation. 2020 Dec;157:74-82

Aim: The AIRWAYS-2 cluster randomised controlled trial compared the i-gel supraglottic airway device (SGA) with tracheal intubation (TI) as the first advanced airway management (AAM) strategy used by Emergency Medical Service clinicians (paramedics) treating adult patients with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). It showed no difference between the two groups in the primary outcome of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 30 days/hospital discharge. This paper reports outcomes to 6 months.

Methods: Paramedics from four ambulance services in England were randomised 1:1 to use an i-gel SGA (759 paramedics) or TI (764 paramedics) as their initial approach to AAM. Adults who had a non-traumatic OHCA and were attended by a participating paramedic were enrolled automatically under a waiver of consent. Survivors were invited to complete questionnaires at three and six months after OHCA. Outcomes were analysed using regression methods.

Results: 767/9296 (8.3%) enrolled patients survived to 30 days/hospital discharge and 317/767 survivors (41.3%) consented and were followed-up to six months. No significant differences were found between the two treatment groups in the primary outcome measure (mRS score: 3 months: odds ratio (OR) for good recovery (i-gel/TI, OR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.69-1.14; 6 months OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71-1.16). EQ-5D-5L scores were also similar between groups and sensitivity analyses did not alter the findings.

Conclusion: There were no statistically significant differences between the TI and i-gel groups at three and six months. We therefore conclude that the initially reported finding of no significant difference between groups at 30 days/hospital discharge was sustained when the period of follow-up was extended to six months.